IS IT TRUE many government housing projects over time have degraded into violent places where illegal activities such as drug trafficking and prostitution are prevalent?…for people of potential to become trapped into permanent dependency in violent neighborhoods was never the intention of any of the federal housing programs but for many recipients of this generosity violence and lawlessness is a way of life?…it is time for such programs to be reformed and refocused on the original goal of changing lives for the better instead of turning people with potential into permanent wards of the state?

IS IT TRUE federal housing programs also work and get worked by private investors in real estate through the Section 8 voucher programs?…these vouchers are direct payments to landlords who have chosen to invest in properties that cater to people whose rent is paid by the taxpayers of the United States?…this practice was started in some ways to improve the living conditions of the people who would have otherwise been trapped in the cycle of dependency that government projects?…some landlords who enrich themselves by “fleecing the taxpayers by appearing to help the helpless” do as bad of a job at tenant management as Uncle Sam does?…it is not unusual for such investment groups to buy a building on credit, milk the Section 8 vouchers for a few years, and let the bank take the building back?…this happens all of the country?

IS IT TRUE that the federal government has been running housing programs for years intending to help people of limited means keep a roof over their heads with housing subsidies?…some such programs involve placing people and families in housing projects that are administered entirely by public servants?…these programs in their beginning were started with the admirable goal of helping people temporarily with the intention that they improve their skills and learn to manage their lives so that they can return to the real market rate world and cease being a burden on the taxpayers?…over time these programs often failed to rehabilitate lives and ended up trapping people in the cycle of dependency known as being permanently dependent on the generosity of the American taxpayer to keep a roof over their heads?

IS IT TRUE we wonder why the Vanderburgh County Commission has Burdette Park marketing contract on their agenda?  …we thought that the Burdette Park manager was in charge of the marketing efforts of Burdette Park?

IS IT TRUE it’s time that the Evansville City Council realizes that there are around 120,000 people living in this town and a little more than a 1,000 of them are willing to pay $10 to see a hockey game?

Todays“Readers Poll” question is: Because of the annual bond payments do you feel its time that our elected officials admit that the Ford Center shall never make a profit?

Please go to our link of our media partner Channel 44 News located in the upper right-hand corner of the City-County Observer so you can get the up-to-date news, weather, and sports.

If you would like to advertise on the CCO please contact us at City-County Observer@live.com

Any comments posted in this column do not represent the views or opinions of the City-County Observer or our advertisers.

Dave Stafford for www.theindianalawyee.com

A mother whose infidelity led to divorce and what a trial court called a “deep, seemingly bottomless rift between the children and Mother” owes a daughter no support with college expenses because the child repudiated their relationship.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling of the St. Joseph Superior Court that determined Dawn Marie Messner was not required to provide support for post-secondary educational expenses to her daughter, Riley, who she learned during mediation began attending Azusa Pacific University in California in fall 2017.

Dawn’s then-husband Thomas Messner filed for divorce in September 2014, after the couple separated after Thomas was presented evidence of her infidelity, the record says. At some point that year, he and his children met with Dawn in a restaurant and gave her an ultimatum to end her relationship with her new partner or have no future relationship with her children.

From that point forward, Dawn attempted to communicate with Riley through texts and through other children, and Dawn provided gifts for major holidays and Riley’s birthday. Riley almost never responded, the record says, and after Dawn was denied joint custody in 2016, father later moved for mother to contribute to Riley’s educational expenses.

But at a hearing, Riley said she didn’t desire a relationship with her mother and she believed her mother wasn’t ready, calling her mom’s new relationship “disgusting.”

Based on this evidence, the trial court held that Riley had repudiated her relationship with her mother and found Dawn therefore was relieved from contributing to Riley’s college expenses.

The COA affirmed Friday in Thomas Virgil Messner v. Dawn Marie Messner, 18A-DR-1110.

“Father argues … that the trial court ‘did not look to whether [Mother] bore some responsibility for the strained relationship between her and not only Riley, but also her other children,’” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the panel. “… However, Father acknowledges that the trial court found that Mother had not been a model parent and that Riley’s repudiation may be entirely understandable. Father essentially argues that, where both parties share the blame for the deterioration of their relationship, a trial court should not excuse the repudiated parent from contribution towards college expenses.

“On appeal, Father acknowledges that no existing Indiana precedent expressly supports his argument. We decline to accept Father’s proposed addition to the body of repudiation jurisprudence. Father’s argument might have some merit if there was a presumption of parental contribution towards a child’s college expenses; however, no such presumption exists.”

The panel concluded that the trial court applied the correct legal standard in assessing the evidence, which supported its determination that Riley repudiated her relationship with her mother.